Manchester City Thread

beachryan said:
Tevez was 45m see link here, from the very respectable David Conn at the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/dav...011/aug/23/carlos-tevez-legal-battle-revealed

Fair enough on the other two. Doesn't change the conclusion though - those 4 positions cost more than any other team net in ten years.
Click to expand...

'from a reliable source'

Yea, we've all heard that before.

If you take into account inflation (and even without) I doubt that you're correct on the net spending. For instance, Utd were spending 30mill on players 10 years ago. Liverpool were spending shedloads, with Spurs not far behind either.
 
Weatherley said:
'from a reliable source'

Yea, we've all heard that before.

If you take into account inflation (and even without) I doubt that you're correct on the net spending. For instance, Utd were spending 30mill on players 10 years ago. Liverpool were spending shedloads, with Spurs not far behind either.
Click to expand...

From the best source I've ever seen, www.transferleague.co.uk, since 2003

Man City: Gross (535m), In (125m) Net: 410m
Chelsea: Gross (555m), In (153m) Net: 401m
United: Gross (317m), In (224m) Net: 93m

Just saying. And that's more or less the entire squads still playing today. (ie for United includes, Ferdinand, Veron etc)

Though, you're right about Pool and Tottenham - both have outspent United in the last 10 years.
 
beachryan said:
From the best source I've ever seen, www.transferleague.co.uk, since 2003

Man City: Gross (535m), In (125m) Net: 410m
Chelsea: Gross (555m), In (153m) Net: 401m
United: Gross (317m), In (224m) Net: 93m

Just saying. And that's more or less the entire squads still playing today. (ie for United includes, Ferdinand, Veron etc)

Though, you're right about Pool and Tottenham - both have outspent United in the last 10 years.
Click to expand...


Those figures don't include the likes of Rio, Veron, RVN etc, who were signed before '03)

But, yea, that's the entire squad, I'm not disputing that. Tho the point about inflation still stands. Veron today would probably have cost Utd closer to 60mill. How much would Rooney cost now? alot mroe than what Utd paid back when they signed him, that's for sure. And if we go further back, players like Andy Cole would have cost at least around 30-40mill. But I digress...

I was disputing the idea that those 4 positions cost more than any other team. First off, you can't compare spending from 10 years ago to today and that figure above ("93m" net spend) doesn't include quite a few players.
 
Last edited:
Sigh. My point is simply that United in the late 90's/early 20's were 'big spending'. They tended to buy one marquee player every 2/3 years, and often broke the transfer record (for the UK).

But City have bought marquee players for their whole squad.

I just don't see how any other team can compete with that. United make more money than any other team on Earth, but even with not a penny of that going to debt we could afford maybe 1 Aguerro every 2 or 3 years. You can afford a Dzeko, Balotelli, Aguerro, Kolarov, Nasri, Silva and more than I can remember in a 12 month period.

How can Arsenal compete? Tottenham?

I just think it's wrong. Yes, you'll most defintiely win the league this year, or next year at the latest. But you'll soon be in a league of one. Unless, I guess, Abramovich decides to out sugar daddy you.

What joy does that bring after the first trophy?
 
beachryan said:
Sigh. My point is simply that United in the late 90's/early 20's were 'big spending'. They tended to buy one marquee player every 2/3 years, and often broke the transfer record (for the UK).

But City have bought marquee players for their whole squad.

I just don't see how any other team can compete with that. United make more money than any other team on Earth, but even with not a penny of that going to debt we could afford maybe 1 Aguerro every 2 or 3 years. You can afford a Dzeko, Balotelli, Aguerro, Kolarov, Nasri, Silva and more than I can remember in a 12 month period.

How can Arsenal compete? Tottenham?

I just think it's wrong. Yes, you'll most defintiely win the league this year, or next year at the latest. But you'll soon be in a league of one. Unless, I guess, Abramovich decides to out sugar daddy you.

What joy does that bring after the first trophy?
Click to expand...


How many "marquee" signings is a team allowed to make in a 12-24 month period before you deem it "wrong"?

This strikes me as the rich calling out the richer. How could other teams compete with Utd when they could afford to splash out around 100 million in the space of 12 months, back in '02, breaking the record 3 times in that period alone, and essentially buying back the title after finishing 3rd, huh? you tell me...

Besides, City have no choice but to sign them in a short space of time due to "FFP"
 
Last edited:
You're right, we spent just under £100m across 3 seasons, from 2000 - 2003. Not sure where your 3 record breakers were, Veron and Rio cost the same, and then that was it for big purchases. You've notably ignored the £70m we made off of sales, but hey I'll give it to you. United used to spend more than anyone else in the prem (though not in Europe, clearly).

But in terms of levels compared to direct competitors, it was nothing like City in the past 2 years. Surely you can acknowledge that?

I know the argument is that City could only compete with United if they invest the best part of a £1bn, because United have had such a headstart (a headstart founded on years of spending the money they earned, but hey okay).

But the City/ Chelsea model is dangerous to football, and to those clubs. City's wage bill is already the biggest in England, probably the biggest in Europe after the last round of purchases. And their revenue isn't even in the top 10. And the only way it ever will be, is if either your owner or his family keep throwing buckets of cash at it.

It's just a timebomb. There are only 2 possible outcomes to the City 'project':

1. The Sheik never has to worry about money in any way again, and can continue to pour his own money into the club, FFP rules be damned (or circumvented, "oh hey Brother can you give me £400m from your loss-making hobby? Yeah, great, FFP all the way!"). In this scenario, wonderful, City become the most successful club in the world long may it continue.

2. The Sheik realises that dumping literally billions of pounds into a hobby of his is maybe not the best use of his money, and cuts back spending a bit. City can't afford to pay wages, much less replace ageing players, and they do a Leeds.

Can't you see that this is a stupid model for football to allow? If City were forced to spend some multiple of their earnings, this could all happen over a 5 year period, where each investment was in some way tied to the increases in revenue they were making. They could use the academy (remember that?) to invest in young talent and develop it. They could create a sustainable model, which woudl be good for everyone.

Instead they're doing a Chelsea. Sink £400m, and then when things start to wane, be forced to dump another £200m in. To a loss making venture.

The world is in recession, and this is where the billionaires come to play. It disgusts me.
 
Van Nistelrooy (19m - 2001), Veron(28m - 2001), Ferdinand(33m - 2002) all in the space of 12 month's, each breaking the transfer record. You did sell Stam but you didn't recoup 70m.

We could go into the history, including the impact of SKY and the Champions League, of Utd not really earning their success as much as Utd fans would have us believe, and how it's forced clubs to spend massive money to compete, but tbh it's in the past and not worth it.

I don't think you need to worry about City doing a Leeds. Totally different circumstances. They're not going anywhere for the foreseeable future, they're completely rebuilding the area around the stadium and it's just as much about promoting Abu Dhabi as it is a long term investment.

It's fine that you don't like it, we'd all prefer to get lucky and have 3-4 generations worth of kids come through the ranks at the same time but that's something you only see a couple of times, if that, in a lifetime.
 
Last edited:
Do you think anyone at Leeds thought they were going to fail?

The fact of the matter is that City will never make, in terms of footballing revenue, the money they need to pay their wages. That is fact, plain as. If no team in the world can afford those wages, how can City?

They are therefore reliant on something they can't control (the whims of the billionaires) in order to simply survive.

That strikes me as wrong, that's all.

Obvious you should be over the moon at your luck, and relish the good years, but a sensible fan would have a bit less naivity about the 'operating model' they're setting up at City. It's less of a business model than a toy for a rich family.

Put another way, and no City fan nor Gary Cook has ever been able to answer this for me: if you want to promote Abu Dhabi, why on Earth would you choose Manchester to do it?
 
Last edited:
Is this the same group that made an effort to buy Liverpool 1st ? If , so I would think like Pepsi to Coco~Cola so is Mutd to ManCity I would change the name to a similar approach to the MUTD /MUCY .
 
my reason why they chose Mancity everyone know Manchester for mutd so City will be associated w/ the city of Manchester a stretch but... I thought this was the same group that went for Liverpool ?
 
Ah ok, I'm not sure tbh. Given that City fans clearly believe they're doing this as some kind of odd promotional idea, and chose Eastlands as the perfect place for such a thing, would be weird if they first tried Liverpool.

(which would have been better imo, as that city could certainly use the investment more)
 
The interplay between Nasri, Aguero and Silva already is brilliant.

EDIT: City our looking special in terms of attacking play :((
 
Last edited:
That was pretty special, I feel pretty disheartened after that, I do think its a title race between City and United but some of the football they played today takes the breath away.

I think we might edge it this year but its inevitable.
 
Dzeko has come good, I was unsure whether he would but good players don't become bad overnight. Aguero is Aguero, so brilliant and Nasri and Silva are wonderful players to watch.

Bear in mind though that Chelsea started like this last season, look what happened.

When City go out there at home against us and don't try and play for a point then I'll start to get concerned. Whether they'll actually do that with Mancini in charge is another matter.
 
Fantastic! :D

I put money on him before the season kicked off to become EPL's top-scorer this year and his odds were a surprising 1/26 which is why I really decided to take a stab at it and thought it's too good to be true!

Wonder what the odds are now.... :P
 
They are just a few, like Kanoute and Amr Zaki among the famous ones, who are fasting all Ramadan long. Most of them put their performances first over God's order. It's just a matter of personal choice of course. Being a Muslim technically doesn't mean they are religious anyway. Whatever..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom